The difference between a Gay wedding and a Nazi one is that denying a Nazi wedding is a matter of free speech and not flat out discrimination, and I do believe most everyone here would agree that the business owner has the right to limit free speech on the property that they have no right to own.

Dumbass denying a gay wedding is also a matter of free speech and it's not discrimination. If you deny service to someone simply because they're gay then yes that is discrimination and you either should be allowed to discriminate against anyone or not allowed to discriminate against anyone. In other words since we're a country where everyone is equal under the law I'd you are required to service a gay couplethen you have to be required to service a nazi couple. Or if you're allowed to discriminate against the nazi couple then you should be allowed to discriminate against the gay couple. That's basically just called being consistent and not a dumbass socialist.

your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.if your answer is:Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarianYes/No you are an inconsistent SJWNo/Yes you are alt-rightNo/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative

not your entire ideology but it tests whether you are a hypocrite or not!

First of all, not everybody has to be a “libertarian/conservative,” “alt-right” or an “inconsistent SJW”. You continue to derogate Democrats, which merely serves to expose your own partisan idiocy and inconsistency. I disagree with the position of people who would say you have to make a cake for a gay couple, but I don’t start calling them names for it. That’s where you went wrong.

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

I think people here may need reminding as to why anti-discrimination statutes were created to begin with. Black people were being denied service in public establishments across the country, forced to either find somewhere else to do business or create their own establishments that would serve them. It was a case of separate-but-equal.

Let's remember too the harms to an individual when they're discriminated against in public accommodations. Say they need to stay in a hotel in town for a job interview. Uh-oh, the hotel refuses to rent them a room. No job interview; no job. Economic harm.

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

I should clarify then, only in states and jurisdictions where anti-discrimination laws are on the books (which includes many states for LGBT, and federal law for race, religion, and gender), are there "specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups." It's debatable whether bakers who are morally opposed to same-sex marriage have to serve a cake to the couple. In my estimation, the bakers are admittedly denying service to the couple because of their sexual orientation (they don't want to serve a homosexual wedding, whereas they'd be fine with a heterosexual one). Therefore I think that that would be illegal according to anti-discrimination laws.

"Protected classes" are not specific groups of people, nor do they accord any additional rights to anyone compared to others. Protected classes, at least the way I used that term in what I said, means attributes of individuals that cannot be the basis for discrimination. 100% of citizens have a race, gender, sexuality, or religious belief. Therefore, 100% of citizens are protected by anti-discrimination laws and are in "protected classes." The impetus for creating the laws however was/is to specifically defend historically marginalized minorities from being discriminated against by those in the majority; anti-discrimination laws aim to protect minority rights and ensure that everyone is "equal under the law."

Hope that cleared up what I was saying, because I don't think you understood me well. Also, it is probably against forum rules for you to call me a "dumbass" like that, but I won't report you.

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

Here's the key phrase. It doesn't always work that way in practice, like when, say, a baker denies basic goods and services to a couple because the baker doesn't agree with them personally.

your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.if your answer is:Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarianYes/No you are an inconsistent SJWNo/Yes you are alt-rightNo/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.if your answer is:Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarianYes/No you are an inconsistent SJWNo/Yes you are alt-rightNo/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative

your answer to the forcing the baker to make a gay wedding cake and forcing them to make the Nazi cake should be the same.if your answer is:Yes/Yes, you are a consistent authoritarianYes/No you are an inconsistent SJWNo/Yes you are alt-rightNo/No, you are a libertarian or a conservative

I don't think anyone should be forced to bake a cake that has a theme on it that they dislike. But one should not discriminate based on the status of the buyer. So the baker has to sell a cake to a Nazi for a Nazi wedding, if the cake itself is a Nazi free zone. I draw a distinction between denying over the counter sales, and personal services.

I don't think anyone should be forced to bake a cake that has a theme on it that they dislike. But one should not discriminate based on the status of the buyer. So the baker has to sell a cake to a Nazi for a Nazi wedding, if the cake itself is a Nazi free zone. I draw a distinction between denying over the counter sales, and personal services.

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

I'm kind of a moderate hero on this question: If the Jewish baker refuses to bake the cake for a Nazi wedding, then he should be forced to instead bake a cake for a Nazi divorce. He should be forced to affirm either Nazi happiness or sorrow. Indifference is not allowed.

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors. Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors. Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

for lgbt people?i wish that was true.but we can't take it as a certainty yet.sad

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors. Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

If you're really from Alabama you know this isn't true for large swaths of America. In many rural/Southern areas, it's more likely that churches will start boycotting bakeries that do serve gays than any significant boycott of a bakery that refuses them.

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors. Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors. Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

If you're really from Alabama you know this isn't true for large swaths of America. In many rural/Southern areas, it's more likely that churches will start boycotting bakeries that do serve gays than any significant boycott of a bakery that refuses them.

Some people I'm sure would do so, but they would be a small minority almost everywhere.